A danger for both Europe and Russia’s stability and peaceful development

The whole idea that Europe tried to unify itself and go from tyranny to freedom without creating an independent defence force would make Machiavelli roll in his grave. NATO is this giant, dangerous monster who’s putting both Europe and the Russia (and also, if not especially others) in danger. Their whole existence is based on exacerbating Europe - Russia relations. Their whole aim is to create one more outlet for the Superintendent’s humongous defence budget (740B in 2020!!!!) and create more business opportunities for the gargantuan military industrial complex which goes with it.

Eisenhower farewell address and his warning on the military industrial complex

The Superintendent and his Vassals are going to tell you that NATO is great and defends us from Aggressive Russia - but this version of the story is unfortunately completely detached from actual reality. Not only NATO is making Europe - Russia relations worse, but their actions are also bringing instability in the South of Europe (see they actions in Libya, Syria). But let’s go with order and try to explain why NATO’s existence used to somehow make sense when it was founded, and why it doesn’t make any sense anymore.

WWII ended in Europe the 9th of May 1945. Certain Countries consider the end date of the war the 8th of May - this is in part due to the Soviet Union’s time zone, but it is very likely that it was also some kind of passive aggressive, insulting move aimed at the USSR (in 1945, the British Foreign Office was also planning Operation Unthinkable, which would have been an Allied attack on the USSR, just to give some context). In any case, the war ended and Europe was basically divided in two different spheres of influence. Germany itself was divided in different sectors which were administered (not occupied) by the winners; the USSR got the biggest chunk because they had suffered the most losses (and they fought on the longest front, defeating 507 German divisions and 100 Axis divisions, according to Soviet figures), and France’s part was carved out of the British and American part (I wonder why Britain insisted so much to have France in between the victors? It’s a bit of a mystery to me).

Europe, in this sense, was divided both politically and physically; as Communism and the Western political system based on capitalism were at the exact opposite sides of the political spectrum, and were at the time considered irreconcilable ideologies (this idea was later challenged by Enrico Berlinguer, leader of the PCI [Italian Communist Party], the most popular communist party in the Western bloc). Following a series of mutual defence pacts, like the Treaty of Dunkirk (1947), later expanded into the Treaty of Bruxelles, in 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was born. On the opposite side, in 1955, the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance (commonly known as Warsaw Pact) was signed by the USSR and six other nations belonging to the Eastern bloc. One interesting point in this sense, is that in 1954, the USSR actually asked to join NATO, and proposed a plan which would see the four winning powers retreating from Germany, and Germany being reunified and allowed to have pan-German elections (albeit with a clause which called for her neutrality). France, the UK and the US refused this plan (another plan in this sense, called the “Stalin Note” was also refused by the Western powers). And in fact, in the premises to the text of the WP itself, we find out that that the very basis for signing this treaty was the Eastern bloc's desire for a peaceful Europe; this treaty was created and signed as a response for having being shut out by Western Europeans:

The Contracting Parties, reaffirming their desire for the establishment of a system of European collective security based on the participation of all European states irrespective of their social and political systems, which would make it possible to unite their efforts in safeguarding the peace of Europe; mindful, at the same time, of the situation created in Europe by the ratification of the Paris agreements, which envisage the formation of a new military alignment in the shape of "Western European Union," with the participation of a remilitarised Western Germany and the integration of the latter in the North-Atlantic bloc, which increased the danger of another war and constitutes a threat to the national security of the peaceable states; being persuaded that in these circumstances the peaceable European states must take the necessary measures to safeguard their security and in the interests of preserving peace in Europe;

The fact that it was the USSR, pushing for the reunification of Germany, is also particularly interesting, because in the framework of NATO, especially in speeches given by the NATO Secretary General, we often hear about “Soviet Occupation of East Berlin” - yet, it was the UK, the US and France who have always been against Germany being freed and reunified. We can already see here the usual wicked mechanism - Russia always tries to get along with these countries, these countries shun them and then play the victims (aren’t we all done with that).

The two organisations never had any actual confrontation - ironically enough, NATO’s aggressive military adventurism started after the collapse of the USSR. On the other hand, 5 Warsaw Pact countries (USSR, Poland, Bulgaria, East Germany [with just a small number of specialists] and Hungary), ran one major operation in Czechoslovakia - Operation Danube (1968). In the framework of what is known as the Brezhnev Doctrine, these WP countries considered the reforms promoted by the PM of the time (Dubček) an attack to socialism; hence they intervened militarily. There were 137 dead and 500 were wounded. WP countries won, and reforms in Czechoslovakia were stopped (this operation is considered one of the causes of the eventual collapse of the USSR, as many Communist parties in both the East and the West were disappointed by it).

In any case, there weren’t any open military confrontation in between NATO countries and the WP countries; they limited themselves to passive-aggressively run exercises on each other’s borders (see Able Archer, 1983, the biggest NATO military exercise until Defender-20, 2020, which while not being strictly the "biggest" in terms of nations participating was the biggest ever in terms of troops and equipment transportation and logistics).

After the collapse of the USSR (1991), the Russian Federation (from now on hereby RF) was born. Unfortunately for them, their start wasn’t the best, really. Extreme liberalisation reforms were put in place: inflation skyrocketed, oligarchs looted all of the country’s resources (and later on many of them fled to London, thanks to a special tax regime offered by the UK government) and RF was hit by a very hard economical crisis. The 1993 Constitution, approved after a Constitutional crisis which saw an extreme wave of violence and tanks being sent to the Russian White House, gave Boris Yeltsin a series of new powers which made his position very strong, as it fundamentally concentrated all of the powers in the hands of the President (this was changed with the Constitutional Amendments of 2020; now the State Duma (the lower house of the Parliament) has the power to approve of the Prime Minister, and not only consent to a chosen candidate; the State Duma also gets the right to approve of the Deputy Prime Minister and other Federal Ministers, and the President will not be able to refuse them). If this wasn’t enough, Boris Yeltsin’s second term was “gifted” to him by the US (so much for complaining about election interferences, Superintendent); as they were absolutely contrary to Zyuganov, a Communist, getting into power. Yeltsin was in power until the 31st of December 1999. We can say that since the year 2000, the RF has made great progress as a country. They paid off their debts, replenished their foreign reserves, started a network of regional and international cooperation organisations (BRICS for example, we’ll talk about that later) and went from being a collectively demoralised, traumatised people to being able to be proud again of their country (this is the impression I have, at least). And in this sense, I reiterate, it is very obtuse for the EU leadership to not realise that if you want to unify the EU and make it last, you need to act like Vladimir Putin, not try to copy and serve the Americans. You can’t go from tyranny to freedom without a grand strategy, and Vassalage doesn’t allow you to have an independent grand strategy which will make your own country remarkable, and a force for good in the world.

The moment Russia went from Tyranny to Freedom - New Year's Eve 1999

Exploiting the fact that there were no military counter-balances to NATO anymore, as the WP also collapsed with the USSR and RF was plagued by internal turmoil (there’s CSTO, of which we will talk later, but that’s different, especially if seen in context), they started expand their sphere of political and military influence around the globe. When in the early 90’s, issues came up with the collapse of Yugoslavia, NATO didn’t let the crisis go to waste; and they meddled with them with bombs (this of course is of strategic significance, as Yugoslavia was one of the founder countries of the Non-Aligned Movement; hence this move obviously had also the aim of political expansionism). In 1999, they bombed that area again. The same year, the UK, the US and France argued, successfully , that NATO didn’t require authorisation from the UN security council to carry on strikes. Thus, Western military hegemony and general lawlessness was brought to the world, fundamentally. In 2001 the war in Afghanistan started; it is still going on, albeit with no apparent aim, scope or objective (and the Western countries don’t even seem to care about the Moscow Consultations, as the US refused to go couple of times). NATO has also been active in Iraq with “training missions”; they destroyed Libya’s sovereignty, nations part of NATO have been invading Iraq with an excuse (WMD); they carried out airstrikes in Syria which de-facto made the war last longer (the 2018 airstrikes in Syria came at a time when Assad had basically regained control of the country and the war was winding down). And now, they’re spending millions upon millions to “deter” RF - deterring them from what, I’ve been wondering for a while; as it seems to me that the only thing they’re deterring here is the basic right of all Europeans to live in peace together.

The first official agreement which came into being in between NATO and Russia was signed in 1997 (Yeltsin was in power, and the West believed that RF would have behaved like a sweet little cub, following her tamer’s instruction and learn how to be a good Vassal). While the semantic and logical meaning of that agreement might have been crystal clear when the agreement itself was signed, today, we have conflicting version on the interpretation of the text of this agreement. The West claims that NATO never promised to avoid expanding eastward:

the Kremlin considers that any further enlargement of NATO would constitute a breach of the 1997 NATO–Russia Founding Act, and an unacceptable encroachment into its perceived ‘sphere of influence’.

while RF claims that expanding eastward (with actions like adding even more US troops in Poland than there already are) would run contrary to what the West promised:

These plans change the terms of European security and run counter to the 1997 Russia-NATO Founding Act that determines the common goal of enhancing stability in the Euro-Atlantic Region. It is now necessary to analyse how the provisions in the agreement comply with the commitment to not resort to “additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces” in the Founding Act.

EH. So now we have a problem here; there’s one agreement, and two versions (or “interpretations” if you will). Who’s telling the truth? Let us go to examine this agreement, then.

In the text, we find this sentence:

In addition, in the negotiations on the adaptation of the CFE Treaty, the member States of NATO and Russia will, together with other States Parties, seek to strengthen stability by further developing measures to prevent any potentially threatening build-up of conventional forces in agreed regions of Europe, to include Central and Eastern Europe.

AHA! So we see here that either the UK’s intelligence committee needs to go back to elementary school to learn better English, or they are purposefully LYING and GASLIGHTING everyone. And here their argument is one of subtle rhetoric; they say “we never promised to NOT build up military in the East” and this is formally correct, as they promised “to cooperate with RF to avoid military build-ups in sensitive zones of Europe, such as Eastern and Central Europe [those close to the border with RF]”.

Let me explain to you what’s happening here with a metaphor. Let’s say you have a roommate. You and your roommate make an agreement to cooperate to keep the kitchen clean. Everyone’s happy for the first week, things are going well. Then one day, you come home and there’s a big dump on top of the kitchen table. You are of course outraged, you go to your roommate and ask for explanations; didn’t we agree we’d cooperate to keep the kitchen clean? you ask. Your roommate looks straight back at you, and says well, I promised to cooperate to keep the kitchen clean, not that I wouldn’t s*it on the kitchen table.

So, what do you think, who’s lying?

But of course, to someone pointing out the obvious, the misleading warmongers would answer something like: RF is aggressive and has been aggressive first, and it is ready to invade Europe and conquer the world.


There is in reality no indication or actual proof that RF would indeed want to invade Europe, or conquer the world. According to Sipri, in fact, Russia has a grand-total of 20.000 troops outside of her national soil; the Superintendent has 220.000.

Also in the European theatre, RF is not being aggressive and neither she has been expanding. NATO on the other hand, has been systematically re-militarising the Eastern flank. Just look for yourself:

And more than this; RF knows very well that the Vassals are being used as pawns by the Superintendent. For example, the US Europe Army Command (which as a European, I consider an occupying foreign military force) ran live-fire military drills in Estonia in September 2020 (which borders RF, and it is one of the most aggressive Vassals). RF responded by holding large-scale military drills in the Bering Sea. The Bering Sea is the sea in between RF and Alaska. On the other side of the globe from Europe and Estonia, literally.

And we know that the superintendent might here claim that RF threatens the poor Northern Europeans because of their Arctic shores but let's face it: RF has what, 10.000+km of Arctic shores herself? Do you think RF is going to start a war for a few hundred km of coast? Isn't this a tad unbelievable?

In terms of total military spending, we’re not even close; RF defence spending is at 65.1B for 2019; this compared to the Superintendent’s 731B, and the 27 EU countries’ total spending of 225,3B (cumulative, calculated by me from Sipri database figures for 2019). NATO spending is about 963B; 53% of the total global defence spending. And even if we would adjust RF’s total to the real purchasing power of the ruble (which is a very ephemeral and imprecise conversion) we’d still get about 120 - 150B; and considering the nature of their country (17.1 million square kms, with fronts on main strategic areas - Central Asia, Pacific, Europe (which shouldn’t even be of any strategic importance), but especially the Arctic (where the ice-melting will allow the opening of at least couple of new major trade routes), without even mentioning that they’re sitting right on top of Baikal, the world’s largest reserve of freshwater, I’m just throwing it out there) it is a perfectly reasonable budget.

"Russia threatens us!" (source)

Of course by looking at this numbers we shall ask ourselves why Autonomous Europe hasn’t started their own independent defence yet; with 225B in total expenses, Autonomous Europe could very well defend itself. At the end of the day, we recall how reports of NATO’s brain death were coming from France (and oh boy, how painful it is for an Italian to say that the French are the only ones talking sense here). But instead of listening to the French, in July this year the Vassal-controlled EU decided to reduce the bloc’s spending for an independent defence. I can see the Finnish shameful political echelon cheering for this - hurray for American bombs! Always be blessed the American military which keeps our standing in the world high, as the biggest contemporary colonisers! Hurray!

And in fact we see how Finland and NATO are doing very important things together; like keeping Finland free of refugees, which are, according to them (I’m not even joking, I wish I was) “sent by Russia to destabilise Finland”. Do you remember when the Italian gvt. and the Libyan gvt. agreed to work together to stop people smuggling and human trafficking through the Med and everyone called them racists? You see how good NATO&Finland’s “RF deterrence” is - keep the muslims out, and throw some more bombs on them! I mean if the Italians or the Greeks would reason like that they might say something like “NATO bombed Libya to send a huge migrant influx going to destabilise our countries” (but of course that’s forbidden, imagine that, to criticise NATO and its Democratic Bombs and Joyful Tanks!).

I mean, if this is the best proof that NATO has, to argue that RF is being aggressive and threatening towards Europe… and in fact, if we actually have a closer look at how RF behaves, in terms of her military, there is no indication that they want to be aggressive towards anyone at all. Their defence spending has been decreasing, not increasing (contrarily to the defence spending of Eastern Europe and the US, for example). Their army has been re-modernised, but it is not made for long-term occupation of large portions of the globe; ironically enough, with all of the talks from the West to be “Romans” and whatnot it is the RF, who’s actually behaving more like the Romans; as mostly if they go in somewhere, they just want to get the stuff done and get the Army home, so they can tell their own population how efficient the RF’s Army is (contrarily to the West’s narrative, according to which the longer our militaries stay in other countries, the best is for them and for their populations). Of course there are exceptions, like their troops being stationed in the contested area in between Armenia and Azerbaijan - in that case they’re actually there to keep stability (and I talked about that situation in depth already).

Of course I know that someone will now start screeching “Crimea! we need NATO because RF did Crimea”. So, let’s briefly address Crimea (we'll address this in another post). Ukraine was caught in the middle in the Superintendent’s aggressive strategy towards RF. In the framework of trying to get control over Crimea, which is situated in a strategic position on the Black Sea, they were planning to get the Russian-speaking national minorities populating Crimea (so in this sense we can note that RF didn't need to take over Crimea to gain influence there, as Crimea was already an area of Russian influence, given that the people there used Russian as their native language, a bit like Åland in Finland and Südtirol in Italy) to vacate their land in order to be able to occupy it themselves. How did they do this?

Ukraine used to have a pro-Russia president (and RF and Ukraine have strong shared cultural ties). The United States, thanks to Obama’s ties and support to neo-nazi party Svoboda, leveraged some internal protests and dissent in order t organise and orchestrate a coup to oust him and place in power a politician who would do their bidding. As soon as this politician came into power, he took away the autonomous status to the Autonomous Region of Crimea, and also took away their right to use their mother-tongue (Russian) in all official matters. Obviously, they freaked out - they knew forcible displacement was coming. So, they first declared independence and then held a referendum to decide on wether they still wanted to be part of Ukraine (which many observers called “unconstitutional” but then, was the act of revoking the region’s autonomous status and the prohibition for the minorities to use their own native language in official matters constitutional? And why would independent Crimea's decision have to be compliant with Ukraine's constitution? What were they doing at OSCE? Isn’t one of the major four departments there literally devoted to National Minorities’ rights?). Surprise surprise, the West, who was trying to forcibly displace these populations in order to gain strategic military advantage, deemed the referendum null and void. Only after it was clear, that the puppet gvt. of Ukraine would have not recognised the referendum and would have bulldozed the people living there, only then, RF & Crimea reunited (with the approval of the local population). Of course even here some pro-forcible displacement individuals would take out the “passportisation” practice; according to these people, RF was distributing RF’s passports in order to be able to “attack”. Yet, the point here is not that RF was giving out passports - the point is that the locals took those passports. The RF didn’t just dump a truckload of blank RF’s passports in the main square; they offered passports to people and people took them, because they were afraid of being harassed by the Western controlled gvt. of Ukraine. The people living there would have been way worse off under Ukrainian (Western) harassment than they are under RF. Aren’t we the ones telling the world that we’re exporting our “values”? Do our European values include respect for national and linguistic minorities?

The West knew perfectly that RF wouldn’t have let them bulldoze their own minorities (the Russian minorities’s rights can always be leveraged to hit and provoke RF); in this sense, the chances they had to actually get Crimea were low. Yet, they did it anyway; and now after they’re being systematically aggressive and dangerous to everyone, they claim that “look at Crimea, how aggressive RF is! This is why we need NATO to defend ourselves!” Yet, they were the ones playing with people’s rights. Harassing minorities. Organising coups. Shame!

I mean imagine if Finland, or Italy, would decide to take away the rights to use the Swedish and German language of the people in Maarianhamina or Bolzano, with the aim of sending them away from their own regions - do you think the people there would go cry to Sweden and Austria? And do you think Sweden and Austria would be outraged with Finland and Italy?

So you see, even the most “aggressive” move that you can bring to prove the RF’s aggressiveness, is actually a complete misrepresentation of reality.

In a last instance, we need to question ourselves on NATO’s compliance to its own founding treaty. In the treaty, it is stated:

Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

So please, can someone explain to me how does the Libya intervention fit in this framework? It was devised as a way for France and the US to in primis, bully Italy, and in a second instance, to allow weapons to flow towards Nigeria and Boko Haram. So they say that they exist to be involved in international processes in a peaceful manner, yet, they somehow always end up throwing bombs. Do you feel gaslighted yet? Do you feel like they might be lying to us? And then here of course the answer might be “yes but RF didn’t veto the Libya intervention in the UNSC” - so how is that, on one side NATO accuses them of trying to conquer the world and on the other side we’re blaming them for not saving the world from the West’s endless wars? And I’d like to stress this once more; the Superintendent and NATO’s endless attacks over the Middle East are the root cause of terrorism, which is dangerous especially for Europe (the Superintendent’s own country is located on the other side of the globe); so once again, NATO and the Superintendent are putting us Europeans all in danger. I mean - have you ever seen crowds in the Middle East organising protests where they burn the Russian flag? I haven’t. It’s normally the Superintendent’s flag they burn. If you’re allied with the guy who’s upsetting entire populations in the Middle East, then you cannot be surprised when extremist organisations form those same country plan and carry out terrorist attacks in your own country. To them, you’re as bad as the guy who throws bombs on them, ruins their lives, their livelihoods, ravages their cities and kills and tortures their people. LOGIC.

And the funny fact about the United States, is that they don't even hide the fact that they're using NATO as a mean to control Europe and her defence. In an article written by the Heritage Foundation and published on American managed Eurasianreview in 2016, the American analysts make it very clear; Europe must remain occupied. They frame the issue of an European Army as such:

For the European Commission, the executive branch of the EU, the ultimate goal is the creation of an EU Army under supranational control, either in full or in part. Although the EU is not yet close to achieving this goal, recent comments by senior EU officials make it clear that many across Europe would like to see this happen.
First, an EU Army would be disadvantageous for Americans and Europeans alike. First and foremost, unelected, unaccountable, supranational bureaucrats in Brussels should not decide when troops are placed into harm’s way. It is fundamentally and morally wrong for those who do not have to answer to electorates to send young men and women into war. An army is certainly the goal for many of Europe’s ruling elites.

The first thing which is interesting in this sense is that the Americans also see the European leadership as unaccountable, unelected technocrats who shouldn't have the right of sending young men into war; and I do agree with that, but while they think that the solution to this is just to maintain NATO as a way to control and rule Europe, I believe that the European Union should reform herself and create a truly democratic, accountable leadership who will use the army in a transparent manner; a leadership whose foreign policy can be monitored by the population and who wouldn't start wars just because they want to wage wars. Then they spell it out loud; an European Army will be detrimental to the Americans. They literally say out loud: if Europe gets her own defence, we'll be damaged, and that is probably because many of the United States illegitimate wars would have been impossible without a base on European soil (think of Iraq, it was managed from Germany). So if Europe goes her own way, we'll not be able to wage as many wars as we want to.

So the policy of the United States seems to be the one outlined in this article;

Here is how they rule us: are you happy of being a servant? Are you happy your land is being used as the launching ground for cruel, murderous wars all around the Middle East and beyond? Are you happy that some corrupt politicians on the other side of the planet have more say over Europe's defence than European citizens have?

But the Americans have nothing to worry about; in the same year, NATO and the European Union became one and together, unbeknownst to most European citizens. The unelected technocrats are controlled by Angela Merkel, and Angela Merkel sold Europe to the United States. Dear Frau Merkel, Europe was not yours to sell in the first place. You like America, you like their nazi friends in Ukraine, you like spending millions of the Germans public money to participate in regime change operations, you don't see any problems in rehearsing an attack on Russia, but I do. Dear Frau Merkel, you don't rule Europe. It is time to put a stop to German-American aggression on European peace.

In conclusion, NATO is not there to defend Europe; NATO is there as part of the Superintendent’s aim of keeping Europe weak, divided, and subjugated.


For the long term

Autonomous Europe would definitely push for NATO to be dissolved, in order to be replaced by an independent, European security architecture. The French would definitely want to lead that(also being the only nuclear power in Europe), but maybe we should have the Italians (who lead their foreign policy also under the guidelines of non-interference with other states’ internal matters, when they are allowed to) somewhere there remembering them that they cannot go around colonising everyone, because with France, things might get a bit out of hand (see Lebanon now). The Superintendent’s army should start packing their bags, and should bring their nukes with them (the European population has the right to live in their own land in peace, without worrying about sitting over NUCLEAR WEAPONS owned by someone else). Autonomous Europe would continue cooperation with the Superintendent, but only as an external actor for matters related to international happenings - Autonomous Europe would set up a strategic partnership with Russia and the CSTO for continental matters. Imagine that; if we’d have a continental cooperation, who would ever dare harass us? Nobody would come to try to take us both in our own place! And this is especially important given the fact that the tensions in between China and the US are likely to escalate - we need to be smart, and think of how to keep our population out of any trouble!

However, the discussion on how to go on about this matter is more complex that this, unfortunately. For the short term, in fact, the most realistic way to go on about the issue is to define what do we mean with the idea of a European army, and how can it gradually replace NATO.

One of the issues of discussing about this matter is that there are two categories of people who understand that NATO is problematic; those who think that we can just crush NATO and the EU together (and that's how we'll regain sovereignty) and those who think that we just need to crush NATO and are against the idea of a common European Army (we don't even need an army). EH. They're both unrealistic. If the EU falls, NATO will never go away, because there is nothing to substitute it with. And if we have nothing to substitute NATO with, NATO will never go away. So we need to be realistic here; the point is not about having or not having an army; the point is which kind of control can the population exert over the way the army is managed. Right now the Europeans don't have any control over European foreign policy, thing which if changed, would automatically mean control over the way the Army would be used. The other issue relates to how an European Army would be structured; do you need to create another army; I wouldn't say so. The idea that was thrown around at the beginning was to enhance interoperability within EU countries; PESCO was created with the idea that countries would share responsibilities. So, rather than create another army, we should use what we already have in a more coordinated manner. For what concerns NATO, the point is not to dismantle it in one go; the point is to phase out American command over it, and pass it on to European command. It's our continent, after all, not theirs. As I pointed out already, the combined defence budget of EU countries is more than sufficient in order to create a defence force (it's three times the Russian budget, and how bigger their country is compared to our territory? Come on). So you first put NATO under European control, and little by little you phase out America out of it (also in terms of weapon systems and equipment, isn't it the time we create our own stuff there as well), and what you're left with, is a fully integrated and interoperable European defence network, controlled by Europeans, and doing the interests of the European continent.

It is in reality, a pretty feasible thing, but there must be the will to do it; and until we are ruled by Angela Merkel and her puppet Head of Commission, this won't happen, isn't it. And this is why political reforms of the EU are at the base of everything. Politicians don't have any incentive in working for the good of Europe, when they don't have to worry about being accountable to the European population.



On a very last note, I'd like to add that I'm sick and tired of being sold a completely falsified version of the history of Europe - our spineless leadership keeps on reminding us how our cultural background and frameworks derives from the common history we have with the Superintendent, but I look for example at the Winter Palace and I see beautiful, common European history; I look at the House of Congress and I see how some Roman-wannabes tried to exploit Italian ancient culture to build a fabricated past for themselves (and ironically enough, the Anglo-Saxons have been considering the Italians an inferior race up to the mid-XX century). Europeans have the right to live in peace, without any foreigner keeping us apart!